PSA: This is what happens when a drone hits the wing of an airplane

The University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) has published a video showing the damage caused by a consumer drone when it strikes the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft. The test simulated life-like conditions, the end result mimicking the collision of a quadcopter with the wing of an aircraft at 383km/h (238mph).

Despite weighing only 952g (2.1lbs), the drone tore a large hole in the wing, ultimately causing damage to its main spar. UDRI's group leader for impact physics Kevin Poormon said in a university release that the drone caused "significant damage" to the structure. Both the video and test results were recently presented at the Unmanned Systems Academic Summit.

The test follows decades of bird-strike research involving aircraft, the data necessary in a world where consumer drone numbers have skyrocketed. Talking about the topic, Poormon explained:

Drones are similar in weight to some birds, and so we’ve watched with growing concern as reports of near collisions have increased, and even more so after the collision last year between an Army Blackhawk helicopter and a hobby drone that the operator flew beyond his line of site.

Earlier this year, a video surfaced of a drone pilot operating their UAV directly above a passenger jet as it left McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas. Similar reports of reckless activity have surfaced in recent months, such as an investigation into a possibly drone-related helicopter crash earlier this year and a drone-plane collision in Canada late last year.

Comments

The drone appears to have no propellors, the aircraft wing appears to have no airflow over it to simulate real world flying. With the drone creating its own vortex beneath the rotors and the wing splitting the flow of air on its leading edge it is more likely that the drone would be swept over or under. I agree with DJI on this one, this ‘research’ is fundamentally flawed and should be removed.

After these kind of articles the mob cries out for draconian regulations and of course politicians eagerly follow. Nobody cares, that ALL ACCIDENTS so far could be avoided if the CURRENT, SUFFICIENT rules are respected and enforced.

I'm a pilot and I worry about drones in the airspace, especially during landing and takeoff. That said, this is misleading. A DJI Phantom has a max speed of around 35mph and a Mooney M20 is doing about 80mph on final; 238mph is just wrong. A 737-800 is flying around 180mph on final, but also has a much thicker skin, deicers and slats/flaps on the leading edge. Still, I feel certain that it would go right through the windshield of most light aircraft.

There is a definite need for some type of control of drones in public airspaces.

Regulations and other means of control are already in place. Things like geo-fencing and regulations are clear. There are no-fly zones around airports of 5km usually and similarly in most countries. Legal altitude is usually 300 feet max. Then it is up to personal responsibility - you disobey safety rules and regulations and screw up - you will be screwed.

Mike: I don't think a 737-800's skin is designed with the objective of taking impacts from drones. If you want to see what damage light, fast moving objects can do to airframes, watch the video of foam striking the leading edge of STS-107's wing. While that impact was at roughly twice the relative speed, the foam was also a lot softer than a drone. In that case as well, the effect of the impact was underestimated.

If you have a drone and a plane approaching each other at, say, 50 mph and 180 mph respectively, the relative speed would be 230 mph. Since the wing was static, they had to have the drone "travel" at 238 mph to simulate the collision speed.

How about aircraft models? Usually much bigger, heavier and faster machines. When it comes to privacy. It is not like drones are spying on you through your window when you are having extramarital sex with your maid. And that odd overflight above your garden, are you hiding anything or what is the big deal? If you are not involved in any malicious activity why would one even have to bother in this day and age where you are constantly monitored through your use of smartphone and internet. If anyone evil wants to screw you up for any reason, he won't use a drone. I personally don't mind if drone overflies my garden and similarly, I have nothing to hide. I would mind if it hovers in front of my window, piloted by some psycho, especially if I wanted to sleep or something. People are making too much fuss about nothing malicious really. Besides a telephoto lens aimed at your window would be more stealthy. Be realistic and tolerant people. Drone hobbyist don't care about taking pictures of you

I’ve hated drones ever since an idiot flew one into the Horseshoe bend right in front of a whole group of us assembled to photograph the sunrise. I’d support any bill that tightens restrictions on them.

that won't prevent accidents, nowadays planes are build with economics in mind, to be the most economic possible (fuel consumption, light weight materials, etc).Instead build planes with thicker skin. And this discussion will be Academic.

@lomopontaechuta you know why planes are made with “thin skin” right? Not because they’re cheaping out, but because the physics of flying through the bloody air demands it. Even combat aircraft have “thin skin” for this reason.

Planes shouldn’t have to adapt to drones. Planes were here first. They had rights to that airspace first. Drone pilots need to have some tiny shred of personal responsibility and not expect everyone else kowtow to them because they got some YouTube videos to make.

yes, thin skin combat planes like IL-2 or B-17,of course I'm not saying to go to that extreme. But after 9/11 the cockpit doors were replace by armoured doors.the old doors were made by a material much similar to cardboard arranged in honeycombs to give strength to the structure,it worked as long you didn't forced your way in.In my opinion will be safer if they use stronger materials than the current ones.Even with laws in place, even if you hold responsible a drone pilot that won't bring back a plane that went down because of a drone.

No, my post was a reaction to Arun H's post of course. So, next time when you get ready to photograph a sunrise and some idiot ruins it for everybody by flying a drone into the picture (and staying there), reach for the .22... ;-)))

I hope the US government eventually requires all drones to have registered serial numbers and even better licenses. We have a beach house that now has had two drones crash into the coupula and break a $2,200 window and the first time a $1,700 light fixture as well. Both times the police were unable to determine who owned the drone. Over $7,000 in damages from drones with no way of finding out whose responsible. Not nearly enough laws on use of drones and responsibility of whomever owns the drone.

Seriously? The wing did not fall off. Right. How many minutes of flight at high speed do you think the wing would have sustained in that state? What would happen if the drone ruptures a fuel tank integrated in the wing?

Combined speeds will yield that speed in experiment. So drone speed + wind speed towards the airplane, + then full speed of airplane that is flying in a DJI drone range. So this is possible to happen in real life.

I saw some video where they shot whole frozen turkeys into a jet inlet with almost no effect. Then I've seen others where the engine was trashed. That said, this drone impact on the wing is pretty serious.

Serious question: How difficult would it be to integrate TCAS into drone software? If manned aircraft are already programmed to avoid one another, would it be tremendously difficult to incorporate that system into unmanned aircraft?

How many kg is an average drone? How powerful and precise a set of radars can you install into one? How does a decent TCAS node weigh? TCAS is not required on aircraft lighter than 5700kg/with fewer than 10 passengers.

Birds cause approx $600 million to the airline industry every year just in the US. Airplanes get hit by bird all the time. Emergency landings have been caused by birds many times. We all remember the passenger plane having to land in the Hudson river in NY. Despite having millions of drones out there, so far we have zero collisions in the US and one in Canada. I think we need to assess danger, probability and statistical risk vs dramatic news reports. Cars cause more than 40,000 deaths in the US every year. 4.2 million seriously injured. $440 billion damages. Let's tackle the real issues and not start a war against recreational photographers flying their drones in completely harmless areas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHTWJ8qDcfk

Recreational drone flying is a very minority interest and will remain one for the foreseeable future. This is massively different from motor vehicle driving which is viewed by the majority of the population in countries such as the US as an essential part of life out of necessity and not just out of convenience. People tolerate losses, including loss of life, more for reasons of necessity (cars) and principles (guns) than for minority recreational desires which most of them don't understand.

"Airplanes get hit by bird[s] all the time" - nope. Birds get hit by aeroplanes all the time. Fact is that our human entitlement has claimed ownership of the sky, and the drone issue is just an extension of that.

But sure, lets prioritise the "recreational photographers flying their drones in completely harmless areas". Because there's no self-interest there, right?

As a citizen I'd like to make all drones illegal; both those raining explosives down in the middle east, and those photographing every tourist attraction from above.

So to all drone photographers: get out of my sky, and learn how to make photographs using a human perspective.

Phew, Thank god it’s your not your sky then. There are people that also think "ground based" photographers are a nuisance and why can’t they just enjoy said tourist attraction or view without having hordes or camera zombies ruin it for them also. You are just another level of the same pest, albeit one that’s been around for longer thus tolerated.

"Despite having millions of drones out there" There are billions of birds, so your example is a bit of a red herring if you are saying, "nothing to see here". With the rate of increase in drones, the probability of an accident will simply increase year over year.

Birds are a part of nature. They are also integral to the global ecosystem. Without them, our world would be out of balance.

Drones, on the other hand, are machines made for people, many of whom use them like children use toys. Very, very few people in the world "need" to have drones, except those who are taking photos for professional purposes.

Added weight is a basic design issue with aircraft. Just like with the Shuttle Columbia, a so called light weight foam broke the leading edge leading to its destruction. This video is a test case which demonstrates that hitting a drone at speed can cause significant damage. Aircraft design is based on the idea to keep it as light as possible. Armored airplanes don't fly all that well.

Aircraft weight is a highly calculated value. I remember a friend of mine that worked on the L1011 line telling me they torqued bolts to a specific setting and then measured how many threads were sticking out. If too many, they replaced the bolt. Idea was extra bolt length added up.

If you reinforced leading edges of wings, say with kevlar, or whatever, that weight would take away from fuel, luggage, passengers or maybe all three.

I got Mavic Air, below 500g drone, some 5 months ago. I fly it only very occasionally as I feel it is very responsible hobby. I don't feel an urge to fly it all the time at all. I only fly it when I want to film something and not for fun of it really. In 5 months I flew it on several consecutive days only when at holidays locations. One have to research before the flight and the most important thing to research is location and distance to airports, helipads, wind speed forecast at certain heights and country legislation and rules. I don't feel like I need to fly it above the legal height which is around 300 feet in most countries. I am glad that my home country - Czech Republic, has less strict legislation when it comes to drones below 500g and states that safe distance needs to be maintained from buildings and people, without stating the exact distance in meters for below 500g drone class, so one can get nice close up shots if one feels it is safe. Pilot takes full responsibility.

Mavic Air is all most drone pilots should need. Sufficient range as line of sight should be maintained anyway. Lesser weight means less potential damage. Good safety features like automatic landing if battery critical to not to have it fall of the skies on somebody's head and similarly. You can limit the height and flight distance easily to not to break rules and use different apps to inform you of the airspace around you and the restricted zones. Good video picture quality, great control scheme and automation, great portability and sufficient flight time. I think it is just perfect drone even for beginner. It is my first drone ever and I always feel a bit of adrenaline when I fly it because I feel the weight of responsibility and as such I refrain from doing any silly stuff.

This thread is full of drone experts who don't own one, have never piloted one, don't know the local drone laws or how flight is regulated - particularly around airports, but also national parks, near buildings and over people and vehicles. And after knowing all of that, the rest comes down to common sense and ability.

The single biggest issue is that people fly them BLOS (beyond line of sight). If nobody did this then the number of plane-drone interactions would fall to a number approaching zero. The problem is that consumer grade UAVs allow flight well beyond 5km. You show me someone that can see that far (without optical aid) and pick out a little white drone against a bright sky. I can barely see mine at 200m.And yes, I personally own and operate UAVs for work (mine engineering).

I assume mandatory third party insurance is required to fly any drone anywhere. If not it should be and the cost of that might act as a control on the number of these toys up in the air.The onus should be on the supplier to check the insurance exists before supplying the equipment and ensuring it is kept in place subsequently. The supplier should then be held liable for damage caused if he neglects to ensure adequate continuous cover is maintained on the equipment supplied.I am sure insurance is the best way to put the actual costs of the risk on to the user and the people selling these things.

1,000,000 + people are killed in car accidents a year and theres 1 in 10 ,000,000 chance a DJi will dent a wing of a plane. that is designed NOT to fall apart like the crumple zone of a car. So far most drone sightings have turned out to be plastic bags and helium balloons.

Clearly, $100K in coverage would not nearly be enough. But an insurance that covers third party dammage up to a realistic, say, $100M, should not be prohibitvely expensive if the risk posed is really infenitesimally small, as some people claim. If the insurance turns out to be expensive, the risk is probably not completely negligible. Even more reason to require insurance.

@spatzThat is the thing. Insurers are the experts in risk and if you can just use these high flying gadgets and send them up in the air free of any cost after purchase and only subject to the law which functions primarily to allocate the blame after the event it is an accident waiting to happen.

oh come on! give me a break. Like half a brain, common sense and 15 minutes where not enough "training". I get the fuss and the key part is COMMON SENSE. But let's not act like these things are incredibly complex flight machines that require a training... go fly them somewhere safe, practice, then be clever when using them in areas where it is permitted. Sure, big heavy ones that carry big equipment should be operated by trained professionals. But consumer grade smaller ones... they are barely more than toys. The problem is there is a bunch of stupid people out there making it hard for everyone to enjoy them.

The problem with the "toy" isn't the capabilities of the drone, but the capabilities of the plane whose flightpath the drone might intersect.A small RC car wouldn't normally kill you. Unless someone throws it from a highway bridge into the path of a car that's driving underneath it at high speed.

Yes they did.The same way single pieces of straw have been known to penetrate wooden barn doors when driven fast enough by hurricane speed winds.Even a hollow aluminium tube with some very dense jet engines and under carriage attached to it are going to 'slice through structural steel' when travelling at over 400 MPH!Add momentum (mass X velocity) into the equation all this is about and it SHOULD be very obvious.

Yeah those DJI s are thin plastic and copper wire, the battery is hardest and also used in all electric cars. Plane is a 50 year scrap yard wreck with tin can Alumina skin. No structural steel lol, the structural part is now Carbon fibre Kevlar and other aramids which make structural steel look like softwoodHow many Teslas have killed people so far?

The issue here in the end will be the same as all issues of this type... you can't legislate people's common sense. People who seek out to know the rules and laws will abide by them and not be the problem. It'll be some wingnut who gets his new "toy" and decides it would be cool to go get some footage of airplanes taking off or landing, or hands his buds his beer and says "hey, watch this!" and proceeds to do something stupid and illegal. People like that probably won't be looking to buy a drone that self destructs easily on impact either, because they won't care and/or can't afford one. Interesting study, but... not sure what it will accomplish. They also don't show what will happen when the Lipo battery "vents with flames" into the wing full of av gas.

University of Dayton Research Institute."As a Catholic, Marianist university, we're deeply committed to the common good. Our faith is a beacon that guides us – and leads us to act. Regardless of your religious background, you'll find opportunities for personal and spiritual development."Link.https://udayton.edu/about/catholic-marianist.php

Sorry, off topic, but at a research institution I am not looking for spiritual development. I am looking for good science. Everything else should stay at a personal level. But who am I to complain, when I was working at KU Leuven several years back ...

I followed this link to the University out of curiosity to learn what a "Catholic, Marianist university" is all about in "three simple words".And the only 3 words I could not see anywhere was any reference to God, Jesus, and Christian. Clearly they are taboo in this institution, so as not to mislead.So 'Caveat Emptor', you might be sold a bill of goods different to what you expected.

@Photato - Isaac Newton was a theist, spiritualist and wannabe alchemist, all profoundly nonsensical. But he is remembered and valued for the sound contributions he made to maths and science, not for woo.

Counterintuitively, it is possible for woo-merchants to do good science. If you have a problem with the way this exercise was conducted, then couch that in engineering / scientific terms.

This is my whole point, the Marinist woo, is their whole glue.And that's where it becomes unstuck, being based on a theistic, spiritualpremise which is founded on unscientific and unorthodox doctrine.To call it Catholic or (universal), is a stretch and just as wannabe.

Maybe true, but I'd still rather run into a pound of feathers than a pound of lead, since I'm guessing that you won't achieve the same density in the pound of feathers no matter how hard you try to pack them together. ;-)

-- The wing did NOT carry an aircraft weighs tens of tons.-- The wing was NOT loaded with fuel.

And finally, if the wing gets damaged during take off or landing speed, the lift generated by the wing can easily drop below the necessary. All jet aircraft needs a few seconds to accelerate, the question is: will they have enough time and altitude?

Unfortunately nobody is going to take these tests seriously until a serious disaster happens.... As always, rules has to be paid by human lives.

What a coincidence this worst case scenario test pops up around the new legislation for UAVs in the US .No doubt rules have to be set, butt the real world chances of these collisions are extremely low. Even if you intentionally wanted to hit an airplane with your drone, the odds are against a hit. If in doubt check anti ballistic missiles.!!! Remember, this is 3D space, unlike 2D automobiles, which exponentially reduce the chances of any crash.

On top of that most if not all current consumer drones are limited to 1,600' or 500M by software. Even if you hack the firmware to fly higher the battery range will limit you to a maximum of 4,000' (1,220 meters) and that is to remain there a couple of seconds and come back immediately to ground level. I tested this myself.To put this is into context most manned aircraft typically fly at a 40,000 feet altitude and 10,000 feet for smaller aircraft.Also you will have to hit some critical part of an aircraft to make an accident like this fatal

So are suggesting that no testing is done, or do you want laws based on actual evidence?

Yes planes generally fly above the maximum height as a drone, but planes have to land. The risk is small, but not negligible and the cost could be catastrophic.

The world is a big place and there are lots of places where you can fly a drone without any risk of conflict. Restricting the areas where it is highest risk and expecting a minimum level of competence and skill seem to most people a no brainer

I am just bringing some sanity to this discussion, especially to people that are unfamiliar with Drones.There are always risk for anything you do in life, but we take our chances if we want to accomplish anything.I doubt most people in the US will agree to bring back the 55MPH road speed limits even when it has been proven to cause less fatal accidents.Same is for Drones. I just hope these new rules reach a good BALANCE between SAFETY and FREEDOM, that is all.

You're not thinking this out. DJI just needs to integrate a firearm into all their drones and the NRA will the defend the constitutional right of all freedom loving Americans to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property within a one hundred mile airspace around and above them.

um .. they did the " integrate a firearm into all their drones " about 3 years ago Some kid stuck a handgun, Army is doing it now, so the Police have drones in one state that can fire a dart into the metal of the car, missed that boat. I'm more worried about dropping my 500mm on my foot than drones of death and destruction by DJI come on, where the common sence?

Alas people are stupid, buy drones and then go "hurrr lets go film planes" and then you start risking accidents. Or they don't read the instructions and lose their drone and off it flies. Or all sorts of things. The issue is human stupidity.

Sadly this just fuels the belief that drones are public enemy number 1 (and helps the press on a slow news day). Equally sadly, I believe that soemone putting a bomb on a plane is still a more likely cause of an air disaster than a dron collision, even with our enhanced security and intelligence.

BTW I also believe that anyone flying near an airfieldshould should face serious punishment. But I do have a question - we hear of lots of drone sightings, near misses and so on....but why have hardly any drone pilots ever been found. I mean, areas round airports are not exactly in the wilderness so there must be some witnesses???

I've seen some daft comments on news items on this site but some of the comment below really are beyond idiotic.

Why anyone thinks it is acceptable to fly a drone near an aircraft is beyond me. There should be no need to test the damage because no-one with a functioning cerebellum would think it is an acceptable thing to do.

Apparently however this is not the case and this does happen. I refuse to search YouTube for the results to be sure as I do not want to add to these idiots 'views' and encourange them more.

In the meantime I'm going to take up drinking and driving because most of the time I won't kill anyone.... and I'm really careful... and no-one has proved beyond all possible doubt that me specifically in my brand of car after drinking my specific amount of alcohol is really actually dangerous.

Safety is about reducing risks to as low as reasonable possible. Tests have been done that show the risk is real and although small not negligible. The solution is to stoop drone flights in areas where the risk is highest. What is the problem with that?

There's a reason why car crash tests are no longer about driving the test vehicle into a brick wall. Because nobody really crashes that way, therefore the tests have been redesigned to check for realistic scenarios. Similarly, nobody smashes drones from an air gun into a stationary aircraft.

Unrealistic warnings have risks of their own. The lesson was learned with the anti-drug campaigns in the 90's which were like "if you take drugs you turn into a zombie immediately, end up in jail within a year and die of HIV with a needle sticking out of your arm". Kids quickly learned it's bulls*it.

I think every sane person knows not to fly their drone into/around an aircraft. Well raising awareness is helpful anyway and this video probably doesn't hurt in the same way like false crash tests and anti-drug campaigns used to be, but if criticism is valid, then it shouldn't be dismissed.

Of course, I am aware that bird strikes are tested in the exact same way.

I mean, I doubt anyone would crash test a plane by actually crashing a $100 million machine.

Still, from a mechanical standpoint there may be a difference. Can a drone even hit a wing? Wouldn't airflows cause it to fly over or under it? AFAIK birds usually tend to hit the cabin and may get sucked into engines. I don't know how common bird strikes into wings are. So a clarification would be in order just to make sure we actually are seeing relevant results.

Not exactly accurate. I saw an experiment done with eggs that showed that the object in motion inflicts more damage to the stationary object than it receives. Here they are shooting a drone at a stationary wing, where the reality is that the plane would be the object moving over 200 mph.

But a drone is a lot less elastic than a mosquito. It is also heavier so has more inertia. We are not saying a drone will stop a plane, but it will exert enough force and pressure on a section of a wing to cause damage .

Lets use a real world example. The shuttle Columbia crashed on re-entry due to hat gasses ingresses through damage to its heat shield. during investigation it was found that a small piece of insulation foam from the main tank caused damage to the wing leading edge during take off as it became detached. Here are the tests

Only the relative speed between the two colliding parties is relevant. The relative speed to some third party, such as the earth, does not matter. Whether a collision is the result of throwing the plane at the drone or the other way round the effect is the same. These tests absolutely describe what happens when an aircraft wing hits a drone.

@xPhoenix"I'm not saying it won't damage the wing. We can see that in the vid. I'm saying that kind of damage is not catastrophic. Large hail or a bird could easily do the same amount of damage."

Yes and thats why a lot of time and money is spent diverting aircraft around hail producing weather and making sure birds do not roost and nest in the flightpath of aircraft. The difference is that we little control over where hail falls, or where a goose decides to fly. We can control where drones are flown. That is the point

The point is the media and people are overly paranoid. There are already rules against flying drones around aircraft. How many drones have brought down a commercial airliner? None. A lot bigger things to worry about.

If you are not happy about more and tighter regulations, you fight against that through the normal channels using whatever expertise you have. You don't try to undermine scientific research with obviously much much lower expertise than those who carried out the research. That gets you nowhere.

I wouldn't exactly call this research. Object is shot into a wing at high speed. Wing is damaged. No crap. Didn't see that coming. What I did see coming is all the comments from butthurt anti-drone folks. LOL, this site never fails to entertain me.

xPhoenix, Your arguments should be regarding as such to the anti-drone folks.

I mostly see people here commenting on how bad peoples knowledge of basic Physics are. Not so many butt-hurt anti-drone folks.

Saying nothing catastrophic happened is just dumb.

Do you know how that damage to the wing will affect the flight characteristics of a plane at low altitude trying to take off or land? The answer is no and much smaller damage has taken planes out of the sky killing everyone on board.

This test is worthless. Compared to the total wing area, that damage is small. This doesn't tell us what effect, if any, this would have on the flight characteristics of the plane. They even link to a story in their article about a Canadian plane that supposedly hit a drone midflight. Guess what happened? The plane landed just fine. The whole drone paranoia is just that—paranoia.

Explain how this tests show anything other than damage to a fake wing. You have no idea what this means for flight characteristics. It could very well fly just fine after this impact. Planes are made to withstand bird strikes, hail damage, etc. Get a life.

Again, there is no discussion of physics here. This is simply something that could've been done on Mythbusters...and they probably would've done a better job. Now go put on your tin-foil hat and take cover because the drones are watching you.

@xPhoenixI do not know if there is enough area of the wing taken out to compromise the aerodynamics but that is not the only problem. It is obvious that any control surfaces, such as flaps, could be damaged as well as fuel tanks, hydraulic lines, etc. This test is conclusive that catastrophic damage is possible. While a bird may weigh the same as a drone, the bird's bones are not as strong as the frame of the drone, so the comparison is flawed.

People who need to take heed of this ain't reading / seeing these articles / videos.

I've seen people justify flying in controlled zones by saying "I only flew near my house" - being willfully and deliberately unaware that they're in an area with active air traffic flying approaches to a local international airport.

You can fly safely near an airport. I fly 4 miles from an international airport all the time. I follow the rules and call the airport and the tower. They ask questions and I respond. I have never been told by airport officials that I can not fly. The only problem I have ever had is from Clueless people that don't know the rules and regulations.

Heated discussions here at DPR are usually about national parks and such -- what if an aircraft flies here or there? What if a chopper flies *between* the trees and a drone flies in front of it and spooks its pilot? Mind you, the latter was an actual topic.

You both do, of course, realize commercial aeroplanes tend to land in airports, don't you?As for airports being no-go zones for drones, so far this year there were 16 drone-related incidents near the airport that serves my town, which is one of the most-sought touristic destinations in Europe. I do feel worried, but of course people are free to think otherwise.

> so far this year there were 16 drone-related> incidents near the airport that serves my town

That is, of course, bad and unacceptable.

However, in the OP you wrote "some people try to justify flying drones near airports" as if there were posts here to that effect. I for one have seen no such posts, hence the "fighting straw man" remark (which you may want to google).

Another hint: do not misunderstand various "Make stronger planes" comments as endorsement for drones to fly everywhere etc.

Those are reactions to some people drawing pitchforks whenever drones are mentioned, irrespective of how well and to-the-rules they are operated. A bit of trolling that is, in many cases, quite justified (IMHO).

Drone pilots must take their responsibility and use their hobby only in places where it’s possible to fly without risks.Training and a kind of pilot's license might be a must, in a way as we use other things which can harm other people or animals like transportation vehicles and weapons.In addition, drone manufacturers have to build safeties in drones to prevent them flying in areas where they shouldn't.Of course, we know it, pilots who ignore rules, ruin the fun for the pilots who want to do it in a good way. That's life, nowadays.The risk that the plane will crash with the damage, as seen in the video, is very plausible. People will die, families will lose their loved ones.

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.